Isn't It Time Artists Lost Their 18th-Century Sense Of Entitlement?

from the brave-new-world dept

One of the common assumptions in the copyright debate is that artists are special, and that they have a right to make money from their works repeatedly, in ways not granted to "ordinary" workers like plumbers or train drivers, thanks to copyright's reach through time and space. Of course, when modern copyright was devised in the early 18th century, artists were special in the sense they were scarce; offering them special monopoly privileges "for the encouragement of learning" as the 1710 Statute of Anne puts it, therefore made sense.

But the Internet has changed everything; it has allowed hundreds of millions of people -- soon billions -- to become active creators rather than passive consumers. That, in its turn, challenges the assumption that "professional" artists are special, and deserve special treatment. One prolific creator who seems to have accepted this is Seth Godin, who featured in Techdirt at the end of last year.

Rivera: Many authors hear your message about being willing to give away their books for free, or to focus on spreading their message but their question is: “I’ve got rent to pay so how do I turn that into cash money?”

Who said you have a right to cash money from writing? I gave hundreds of speeches before I got paid to write one. I’ve written more than 4000 blog posts for free.

Poets don’t get paid (often), but there’s no poetry shortage. The future is going to be filled with amateurs, and the truly talented and persistent will make a great living. But the days of journeyman writers who make a good living by the word -- over.

As he notes, although he is a hugely-successful author and speaker today, and hence presumably well paid for both, he started out by giving away stuff -- lots of it. It was only after he had established his value in the market through that free content that he was able to to start asking to be paid for future work. In other words, just because he was a great writer and lecturer didn't mean he had an entitlement to be paid from the start; he had to prove he was worth paying before people did so. And even then, they paid not for what he had done, but what he would do -- just as you pay a plumber or train driver.

This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

That's not to say artists shouldn't make money from their work in some way, just that the long-held assumption that artists must be paid directly for everything they do, again and again, and even after they are dead, because they are "special", simply isn't true any more -- assuming it ever was.

Re:

Re: Re:

Umm, no, those people (like say PaulT) who feels entirely entitled to products that are not available in his chosen country of residence. He feels entitled to pirate them because he isn't willing to pay what would be the true costs of making these products available through legal channels.

Re: Re: Re:

I know I'm just feeding the troll here, but I agree 100% with feeling entitled to products which are available in one country, but not mine. The internet has no borders. If friends of mine in a different country can view something; I should be able to view it at the same time. I would be completely willing to pay for it, but the MAFIAA seems to hate the idea of people paying for the content the produce, since there's often no legal way to pay for it.

Re: Re: Re:

How does one make something available in a country in which it is not available without paying the true cost of making those products available? Seems like in order to do something you'd have to cover the costs to do it. I'm sure you feel the phrase 'through legal channels' is some sort of catch all that changes things significantly but it's really not. There's nothing stopping legal distribution from being inexpensive.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, "through legal channels" means that you pay what it would cost to get the non-local language version into retail condition for that country.

Look, if you choose to live in, say, Spain, but you want English versions of all the latest DVDs, then you should pay the price for them. If the market is small (a few hundred units) and the costs to make them conform to local laws high (packaging, ratings, whatever), then you should expect to pay a much higher price for that product in Spain rather than in England.

The true culprit in this whole deal isn't the movie companies. Trust me, I am sure they would love to sell every version in every country (when released) if they could do so profitably. But with so many government regulations in place, requirements for local involvement, language requirements, packaging, and so on, it's pretty much impossible to produce a VERY limited run of non-local language DVDs to sell.

Yes, you could move them electronically, but that is considered a sale, and would still be subject to local laws. It might also be restricted by rights / distribution deals signed in each country.

So there is enough blame to go around. But since the end consumer (who wisely chose to live in a country that doesn't speak their language) isn't willing to foot the true legal costs of doing business, it's pretty much moot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If you choose to"? So it's not fair to expect companies to reach out to consumers, but it's fair to blame consumers for "choosing" to live in countries where content isn't available? ("Well, sucks to be you to be born in Asia!") Are you seriously proposing that people who want content migrate?

See, that's another reason why no one takes you maximists seriously and consider you having a sense of entitlement. You think the whole world should revolve around getting stuff according to how you want it at the behest of everyone else.

"Giving it away" is a misnomer

"Shouldn't you put together a book and sell that first?" gave way to "They won't buy what they can't see", and in truth, both statements were wrong -- they WILL buy what they can only see a fraction of, but they certainly won't buy what they have no clue about, and free online content is that clue.

Giving away content is the price artists pay to get people to pay attention. If you can repackage that content into books and sell those, so much the better -- but you've got to get their attention first in order to do so.

Re: Re: Re: "Giving it away" is a misnomer

now all you have to do is convince the rest of the 'i think i am entitled to it, so i want it!' bunch and we're on a winner! some hope of that. and file sharers are the ones who are supposed to be 'leeches'. shame the 'entitled' dont look in a mirror before throwing accusations about!

I would say artists are entitled to expect to be paid fairly for their work. Record Labels should lose their 18th century sense of entitlement. By their very nature they are receiving rewards for other people work.

Re: Re: Re:

Yup, they get paid less now, and get paid more later. After all, Google keeps serving you ads after the first time you visit them. Shouldn't they be satisfied with serving you only one add in your lifetime, even as you continue to revisit their site? Shouldn't they be allowed to show ads to new users too?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's the difference between renting and owning. You don't think an apartment owner has made their money back after a certain point and everyone after that is simply padding the wallet? Or the rental car company?
This is the downside of streaming/pay-per-view. And don't kid yourself, the artists don't see a whole lot of that money.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The problem is that artists what to be paid over and over for the same single piece of creative output. But you don't see the builder or architect getting paid again when someone new moves into the house they built or designed.
So why then should an artist be paid multiple times for one song/picture/movie etc.?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you actually suggesting that these two business models are in any way comparable?
1. Artistic works have a limited shelf life for a great deal of them, while a house is an investment, made to last year after year. So the availability of a house will last DECADES longer than the interest in an artistic work.
2. If an artistic work such as a painting or first-edition novel becomes rare enough to be considered an investment, the artist doesn't see a dime of the money from the sale of that work at auction, the owner of the work or copy does.
3. Most importantly, the business models are completely different. Artistic works such as songs, books and films are priced based on availability. With a house, there's only one of them, so they're priced quite a bit higher. But that's it, one shot. After that, they're both in the same market - re-sale.

Re: Re: Re:

well what about an artist who paints a picture ????
Do they charge everybody to look at it ? Do they keep charging them for years ???
With the "creative accounting in hollywood"minor actors musicians & songwriters probably get a pittance of what the "BOSSES" get. In addition Hollywood was embroiled with the 99% who work on getting the movie done. These 1% ers
work these people 16 or more hours per day, (the star like Tom Hanks gets to relax in his posh trailer after 8 hours, it's in their contrac ts that they cannot be over worked) but the 99% are told to do it or get replaced. At least one worker drove home after a 16+ hr day & was killed falling asleep at the wheel, I believe he had a couple of young kids.
So the sweat shop is alive & well in Hollywood.

Re: Re: Re: Getting paid

Naturally doesn't mean without effort. What they were saying is many (perhaps all) very great artists were not driven by profit motive. There's no guarantee that money would ever come out of spending years working very hard honing a craft. Yet they do it anyway because it's not money that's driving them. It happens 'naturally' with no additional outside encouragement.

In it for the money

Well, I certainly refuse to produce anything unless I'm being paid for it. For example, a co-worker of mine agreed to pay me five cents to post this comment.

However, looking a the receipt he gave me, there may be some shady accounting going on, because it appears that my five cents has been used for "promotion," rather than being handed over to me directly.

The usual critics will be outraged but let's just stop and think about it: he started giving things for free. Why? Because no1 knew him. Then he got famous. Now he can organize events, books and stuff to actually SELL and EARN MONEY not because he should earn that money but because he DESERVES to earn that money. I'm not into poetry so while I might be interested in checking his work I'm probably never paying a cent. But I can tell a friend who loves poetry about him. And that's a good thing. I won't pay for this group music nor I'll go to their shows but I"ll throw a lot of money for the other group. It's simple, why should
I give money to some artist I couldn't care less if I suddenly can't listen to their songs ever again?

I already give my money to a few artists but I'm not Mother Theressa of Calcutta, my money is finite and I'm not into charity. If you wanna be an artist/director/whatever in my "to support" list, earn the right to be there.

Beyond that is the fear that you're going to be taken advantage of. You fear that if you don't lock down your work, someone else will figure out a way to make money off of it that you couldn't or didn't come up with yourself. And there are people who do that. What I've experienced is that these people work for publishing companies and recording studios and movie studios.

If the copyright infringers were making money off of your work, you could just copy their business methods to make your own money. If someone is posting your work on a website and adding ads and actually making a buck off of it, you could do that. Of course the pirates aren't actually making much if any real money off of ads, so this isn't necessarily a good business strategy...

But if you sign away your copyrights to a corporation, you can't compete with them because they can sue you for trying to make money off of your work in a way that competes with their business model. And they can and do use contracts to screw you out of your share of the profit.

And the shill response to all this is the inherently unethical: "Well if artists are stupid enough to sign away their copyrights and earnings to their studio/publisher, that's their fault!"

Re: The real threat.

Re: Re:

It's more like the story of the Walrus and the Carpenter from Through the Looking-Glass. It was the choice of the oysters to go with the Walrus and the Carpenter, but the Walrus and the Carpenter are still the predators preying on victims via deception. The poor choices of the victims do not excuse the unethical conduct of the predators. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

The reason this Godin character is so highly paid now is because he wrote for free (that is, invested in his skillset, the way you do in every profession) before he was able to charge. This idea that an artist innately is born with some entertaining quality is ridiculous, it takes years of effort to produce one sellable product that competes on any type of profitable scale. This is effort that presumably occurs in lieu of some other paid activity. These are real man hours and will eventually be compensated as such if they are to be fruitful.

Re:

But I ask, who determines when you're "ready" to expect compensation? You? The Publisher? The Market?
This idea holds no water because the ultimate judge of your worthiness is the market, which, as we all know, makes absolutely no determination as to your skills as an artist. Take the "Twilight" series - the Author and Publisher are making a very good amount of money on the series (and subsequent movies), but the books themselves are not very good (and I'm not just talking about the writing style, the books themselves are poorly written). So why assume you need to go through some sort of "probationary period" before you can expect compensation? Throw it all out there and ask a decent price. If the Market likes it, then you'll get what you want. If they don't, then you won't and you'll have to try again.
It's just too easy to take advantage of the idea of "give it away for free until you're worthy".

Subversive nonsense...

The idea that artists don't deserve compensation for their work until after they've "established" themselves is ridiculous. If you do not expect SOME compensation from the start, then you should NEVER expect compensation. Godin states that he had to prove himself as a writer before expecting compensation, but who determines when you're "proven"? When is the magic time when you can start saying, "Okay, I've given enough away for free, now let's start making money"? And who's to say that the "demand" for your work isn't just due to the fact that you're giving it away?
Think about any other industry (plumbers were mentioned) - how many would have succeeded if we applied the same thought to them? How many plumbers do you know who spend the first 1-3 years doing stuff for free and then, when they've "proven" themselves, start to charge for their services?
My father always said, "Never be afraid to ask for fair pay for a day's work". I agree that it's time to stop thinking about artists as "special" and actually start thinking about them as "skilled labor" and let the market decide what their offerings are worth.

Re: Subversive nonsense...

"How many plumbers do you know who spend the first 1-3 years doing stuff for free and then, when they've "proven" themselves, start to charge for their services?"

Right here buddy. Cant tell you how many jobs that I have done for cost for the word of mouth value.

Its called building a reputation.

You do little extras that separate you from the rest, and before you know it you have more work that you can handle, have to hire another employee, then get to sell your business to go off and do other things.

Re: Re: Subversive nonsense...

So for the first 1-3 years you NEVER got paid?
I highly doubt it.
My father was in the trades and while he did as you mentioned, doing a little extra here and there for free, he ALWAYS charged for the work he was hired to do.
And spare me the "hard day's work" nonsense. If I'm hired to do a job and I complete it on time, within budget and with exceptional (hell, even satisfactory) quality, I expect a check at the end.

Re: Subversive nonsense...

I think you've got it right that, anyways. When your demand is low, you give it away. You keep giving it away until the demand is higher than your supply -- if you can give 12 speeches in a year and 13 people want you, well, how are you going to choose which 12 get you? Charging is one way (but not the only way) to make the decision. Who decides? The market decides.

And what if all the demand is because you're giving it away for free? Now you're talking about the wide sense of market forces on price. If there's a strong demand at $5, there will be a weaker (or non-existant) demand at $50. If there's a strong demand at $0, that doesn't mean there will be any demand at $5. It's a risk you (whoever you are and whatever you're selling) have to take. And if market demands can't meet your operating costs, then your business (whoever you are and whatever you're selling) isn't sustainable.

I can cook pizza. That doesn't mean I can make a living from cooking pizza, and it doesn't mean I'm going to be the next Dominos. But that doesn't mean there isn't money to be made in cooking, or in cooking pizza specifically.

Re: Subversive nonsense... ( Totally missed the point )

"Think about any other industry (plumbers were mentioned) - how many would have succeeded if we applied the same thought to them? How many plumbers do you know who spend the first 1-3 years doing stuff for free and then, when they've "proven" themselves, start to charge for their services? "

And how many people that pay for a plumber to fix their toilet, continue to pay the plumber a monthly license for every flush? For the life of the plumber plus 70 years of payments to his heirs.

Re: Re: Subversive nonsense... ( Totally missed the point )

You have to pay the city for every flush, don't you? And where do you have to pay every time you listen to a song or watch a movie? Streaming? Movie theaters? Buy the copy and enjoy it again and again. Like I said before, it's the difference between renting and owning.

Re: Subversive nonsense...

> The idea that artists don't deserve compensation
> for their work until after they've "established"
> themselves is ridiculous.

Sounds a lot like the old regime really. Labels wouldn't talk to you unless you had already established a following. People like to pretend that all of this loss leader internet marketing is something new when it isn't really.

Artists have always had the problem of getting noticed and had to pay some dues before getting to work gigs that actually pay money.

The Internet is really great at making ancient history seem like something new and revolutionary.

Re: Subversive nonsense...

If you do not expect SOME compensation from the start, then you should NEVER expect compensation.

So nobody should ever expect compensation, because as I recall an often lot of people start doing their "thing" as children.

Artists start to learn their craft when they are young, painting for free, expending a lot of money on music sheets, instruments and so forth. Some don't ever let go even if they don't get paid in fact they lose money doing what they do since they can't sell their "art" to nobody because nobody want it and that is the majority of "artists" in the world today and it was like this since humans begin roaming this earth.

I'm shocked at your lack of understanding of human bahavior.

Quote:

who determines when you're "proven"?/blockquote>
The market, when many people want to "hire" you to do something. You need to be wanted first to get paid and if nobody wants to pay you for past work I don't see where this is a problem since nobody else gets paid for work they did in the past only for work they do in the present, if you don't believe that is right then I am forced to ask you to pay the maker of the tools you use everyday to make your living a percentage of your earnings, is that not what you think it should happen?

Quote:

Think about any other industry (plumbers were mentioned) - how many would have succeeded if we applied the same thought to them? How many plumbers do you know who spend the first 1-3 years doing stuff for free and then, when they've "proven" themselves, start to charge for their services?

Anybody who has a trade learned that trade, either with his parents or paid for education, he got to do a lot of free stuff first until he got to the point he had desirable skills inside any market.

Quote:

My father always said, "Never be afraid to ask for fair pay for a day's work". I agree that it's time to stop thinking about artists as "special" and actually start thinking about them as "skilled labor" and let the market decide what their offerings are worth.

That is the thing copyrights are not fair and just, they are a government granted monopoly and aberration something not meant to last because of the very exclusionary nature of it.
Open source people can make money and they don't need any exclusionary powers to do it, how do you explain that people are making a living and not only that some are rich beyond their wildest dreams and they don't even use copyrights to do it.
Asking for fair pay for a hard's work day is not the same as asking to exclude everybody else from the same field and forcing everybody to pay you rent.

Re: Re: Subversive nonsense...

Getting paid is the difference between Professional and Hobbyist. Your examples refer to children and students, who are not considered professionals. But after the student graduates, do you think they don't expect to get paid a fair wage,
But you've shown your hand with the last paragraph: you're the type who doesn't think anybody should have to pay for anything. Open source products have one inherent flaw that everyone knows and accepts: when you don't have to pay for it, don't complain about the quality or support. Know why company IT departments use Red Hat over Fedora? The extra green they spend on support.
And copyrights and patents don't exclude anyone from anything. It just prevents unscrupulous people from profiting of of someone else's work and potentially tarnishing the inventor's reputation.

Re: Re: Subversive nonsense...

Re: Subversive nonsense...

Any other industry like, for example, law and medicine where workers literally do spend years of their life giving their work away for free and then, when they've proven themselves, start getting paid for their services?

How about plumbers in fact, don't many plumbers give their work away for negative dollars (read: pay to work) while attending a trade school in order to be come plumbers?

I have been waiting for these notions to bubble to the surface for some time now - not because I welcome them, but because I think it was inevitably going to happen as long as professional artists and writers (and hopefuls) continue to side with distributors and publishers against the general public.

Artists and writers are just so easily victimized and exploited. If the majority of them keeps aligning themselves with the wrong team for much longer, there is a chance they might indeed lose so much more than just the old markets of the late 20th century, they might see new markets never emerging and instead find themselves reduced to being amateur contributors to a new cultural commons.

I am convinced that it does not have to be like this however. People like to pay for excellence, convenience and a wealth of choice that a cultural commons will struggle to deliver. But not at gunpoint and under the threat of being convicted for mindcrime.

I walked into Starbucks one day and they gave me little card good for a FREE download from itunes.
I downloaded it and liked it a lot.I had not heard of Rodrigo Y Gabriella before then but I bought both of their albums and will buy more in the future.

I never went into a store and spent hours looking thru all the CD's for something to listen to...big waste of time. Needless to say I didn't have much music to listen to at home. now I have about 300 songs that I have bought and paid for.
Soooo before free downloads,no music. After free downloads,lots of music and all paid for. Imagine that

Coppola's got it

If I want coffee freely available in my own kitchen, I need to get a coffee machine. Or (a better analogy) if I want delicious meals freely available in my own kitchen, I need to employ a chef.

Likewise, if I want movies, music, stories, freely available to me, I need to "employ" an artist. The costs are enormously distributed sure, but if he can afford to stand there all day until somebody requests a poem, it's got to be because his basic living expenses are looked after for him.

It's like back in the 18th century, how classical composers were employed by courts or commissioned by wealthy patrons. Only the richest could afford such an extravangance like art back then. But with the internet, we're all aristocrats now.

That back catalog rearing it's ugly head again...

I can also choose to use the single best performance by the single best performer and the best composer of all of history. If it is a really old work, it should even be in the public domain. 3500 years of artistic work is already bought and paid for.

I'm An Artist and I'm Not Entitled

The ones who are themselves entitled are usually the ones who can afford to be. In my experience (I've spent years at times just playing in subways for change besides other more normal areas of the music business) 98% of musicians have to scrounge for what work and pay they can get. The only entitled ones are those who already have fame and fortune thrust upon them. Once they've gotten it, then they expect it all the time. Also, don't confuse the idea of expecting to get paid for something you've created with "wanting" to get paid for something you've created. A lot of artists work hard and are very passionate about their trade. They believe in their work and therefore see worth in it, so it's hard for them to except that they shouldn't get paid for something they see as valuable. I can't speak for other types of art, but I can say that making music (writing and recording) is time consuming, expensive, and (at times) hard. I don't expect to make money from it, but it sure would be nice! :)

Re: Change is coming after all of us

In theory, I have thought this for a long time. However, it does not seem to be happening.

As a software engineer, I have spent years of effort trying to make sure technical non engineers (business analyst types) could build as much of the product as possible. Basically trying to put myself out of a job. It has worked to make product development faster. It has not put me out of a job.

I've looked at model based development, but haven't seen any successful implementations. I'm sure they exists, but they are not prominent. I've looked at other non code based ideas, and I really haven't seen anything successful. Jimminy, just look at the mess an SAP implementation usually is.

I think it would be a great thing economically if more business focused, less highly compensated people could build applications. I'm far away from the union leader who thinks robots are evil job killers. I'll find another profession if mine becomes obsolete.

The thing is, it may be a problem of irreducible complexity. Think AI, which we are nowhere near. You want software to make the decisions you would make. Even tougher, you want software to be configurable to make decisions Jack, Jane, and Julie independently would make. Given the biological complexity, I don't think we will ever get there, but we will always be trying to get closer.

In a less theoretical context, think about the ever increasing number of systems and APIs computers have to access to do useful work. Someone has to program the access to that interface, and account for all the ways a user of that system may want to use it, and make it scriptable.

No software engineer I have ever known has wanted to write more, rather than less, tedious code. Everyone of them has wanted to use or write software that was "bim, bam, bop, done" to get the feature completed. Of course some I have worked with wanted to go to lower levels to make them easier to use and more flexible, but that just re-enforces the point (less tedium for everyone).

By the way, we are automating things in the software development space. Think IDE, static analysis, test framework, and continuous build. All of are constantly improving.

RE: FAST sorry, but that sounds like a toy project. Given that the number of test scripts is 2 orders of magnitude higher than any other number stated, I'm guessing the majority of test scripts were generated. Sorry, but you really do still need a critical human with both requirements and designs to create proper test scenarios. No development experience and no access to business analysts on the small project? I have to assume it was a toy project.

I don't think software engineers are going to be out of work anytime soon, but rest assured, we are trying.

RE

I started learning computers back in 1991, DOS 6 and windows 3.1 for workgroups, at the time I was selling computers I didn't even know what a C>/ prompt was. My brother had just got out of college his specialty , Computers of course. I was/am a Huge book worm, had a personal libirary of over 2500 books (even a first print edition of O. Henry)
I worked on Commission so if a PC was returned, I lost Money.

One day a Customer whom I had sold a PC game to retuned to the store to tell me that the game would not run on that PC. the hardware requirements were to the specs of the Game, so I called my brother on the phone to ask him what to do, he told me how to exit windows and get to a C>/ prompt and type "help" so I did, I said now what, he said they are words, you are a book worm, read them and hung up.I had no Idea about rom ram upper memory expanded memory or anything, however, I did know words, I got the PC to run the game after about an hour of messing around in DOS.

2 years later, I was offered Money to speak about hardware at a software sales convention by a co-worker. to this point I had been fixing PC's for free and told him so, he replied "even Hookers get paid" I said true but they also provide a service, he said as do you, you know how hardware and software work together.
I started charging 25$ an hour to fix PC's after that, a year later I was running my own PC biz out of my home, I NEVER advertised, it was all "word of mouth" I ran my company for 8 years, had zero over head other than the cost of internet (dial up at the time) I always had more work then I could handle and even got to refuse folks I did not want to work with..

If you are good at your craft, the money will come to you, not the other way around. I still fix PC's now and then as I choose but it's my passion not my full time Job anymore, the hours were way too long. I like to work 40 hours a week not 60 or 80 any longer, I could, I just don't WANT to.

I still have no degrees or certifications in PC repair, but I worked at DELL 3 years ago in Austin, fixing PC's for a summer. it was fun, I worked for a temp agency and passed their test with only 3 out of a hundred questions wrong.

[he had to prove he was worth paying before people did so. And even then, they paid not for what he had done, but what he would do -- just as you pay a plumber or train driver.]

Do you pay your plumber or electrician before the job is done? We certainly don't. When the work is completed satisfactorily, they get paid. They don't get paid first.

I actually do tend to agree with the article, and with the fact that you have to work you way up to the paid market. I simply don't agree with paying anyone for work that has yet to be done.

When I do a portrait job, I don't ask for money first. I ask for payment when I finish the completed work and the client is happy with it.

And yes, artists do have to pay their bills just like everyone else.

While I give away the vast majority of my work for free (so I am on the freetard side I guess), I am also on the side where you get paid for the job you do. And because I create whatever it is I create, I get to choose which pieces I will give away or share for free, and what pieces I will sell.

Not you. Not the guy down the street, not an militant copyright OR copyleft group. I get to decide. For the most part, I'm fairly benevolent and tend to say yes pretty easily when people ask for something that isn't free but I have harder time when people DEMAND that I give away everything for free because it's expected.

Why is it so hard to understand for some people? Your plumber doesn't work for free. You can't board the train or bus without paying for it. The electrician will not come free of charge.

Why is it okay that artists and writers should be expected to give away what they work at, for free?

Sharing work for free gives me more pleasure than creating a fine art print for $300, but I do have to pay rent, and buy groceries, and all the other things families need to pay for.

I guess for me it's about choice. I am not anti-copyright, and I am not pro-copyright. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I simply want the same rights others have - to choose what I do with my own things. I don't expect to be paid for everything as evident by the number of sites where I post work for others to use, but when I do ask for payment, I shouldn't have to fight for it because half the world thinks it should be free.

Re:

For the most part, I'm fairly benevolent and tend to say yes pretty easily when people ask for something that isn't free but I have harder time when people DEMAND that I give away everything for free because it's expected.

No offense intended, but it seems a bit arrogant to assume that your work is important enough to the world that they DEMAND anything of you. Perhaps EXPECT would be a more suitable word.

Re: Re:

That came from experience. I've had many "demands" (yes, demands) for some of my paid work to be issued freely.

Why? Because someone wanted it. That's why.

Seriously. I am not a great artist by any means. Nor do I think I'm the world's best photographer, but I am certainly annoyed when I get an email demanding that I should give away stuff I reserve only for prints.

As they say, beauty in art is in the eye of the beholder. I'd admit to actually not liking some of my completed work, but that stuff appears to sell. Go figure.

Re:

And because I create whatever it is I create, I get to choose which pieces I will give away or share for free, and what pieces I will sell.

I would certainly agree with you on this; however, the copyright regime isn't about protecting your ownership rights in the "pieces" you make, it is about prohibiting others from making their own "pieces" by copying your piece.

If a baker creates a cherry-banana-chocolate cake, the law should certainly not encroach on the baker's choice whether or not to sell it; but it is quite a different thing to have a prohibition against anybody else from selling cherry-banana-chocolate cakes that they create.

Re: Re:

Like I said...I'm not very "pro-copyright".

I want to protect only my rights in my actual work. A digital copy of my work is still sort of my work. Getting a digital copy of my work makes the digital copy of the work the "holder's", but it still doesn't make it "their work". So, if someone obtained a digital copy of my work and posted it for sale on a stock site, you bet I'll complain.

If someone buys a couple of prints and wants to sell them for more somewhere else...more power to them if they can. They own the print, they can sell it if they want.

However, if someone takes a copy of my photo and creates their own painting, drawing, or other artwork from that photo...great. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's actually pretty cool - I've had a lot of artists ask to use my work for their painting and I always say yes.

Don't have a problem with someone copying my style, my setup or layout for a photo shoot...unlike some other photographers. I actually teach people how to do it if they ask.

In truth, I'm not horrible protective of my rights and don't waste a lot of time trolling around looking for unauthorized copies. Wastes my time and there's little value in it, for me, or anyone else.

Artist deserve 100% of their sense of entitlement. I did think that the comic about someone not being able to obtain their favorite TV series anywhere on the internet, so the finally resorted to TPB was funny, but the IP Right Holders have 100% right to not put it up.

Now, we can argue all day whether art should be free, and whether or not it shouldn't, and whether it's wrong or right to capitalize on art, but the point is it's NOT. And it's not going to change.

Why?

Because, as an artist, I need money. I need money to get in a studio, or to buy recording equipment, to stay on the road, to buy new stage equipment, etc. etc. I need money. Therefore, I am going to capitalize on my art. Why?

1) I feel as if my art has value. If my product is stolen, then I firmly believe that either a) the person really wanted my product, and I'm happy for that (even though I'd rather have them buy it) or b) that they may like my music, but they don't really want to pay for it. Frankly, more than not, that's the case. It was definitely that way when I used to pirate.

I'm not saying that all the ideas on this site are crap, but I'm simply asking people to get real. Piracy IS a real problem. No matter how much innovation you do, it's not going to combat piracy. Piracy is a problem for artist. Trust me, I know. All these sites I go on (such as TD and TorrentFreak) all have turned into extremist sites dedicated to making excuses to make stealing okay.

Re: Re:

I do have a job. I'm a musician. A professional musician. I rely on people coming to my shows and people buying my albums for a living. Do you know how much time many prfessional artists spend on their work? Longer than 40 hours a week. I spend hours, and hours, and hours upon hours sitting a piano, playing guitar, writing music, listening to music, looking for inspiration, studying music. My life is CONSUMED by music.

Re:

I did think that the comic about someone not being able to obtain their favorite TV series anywhere on the internet, so the finally resorted to TPB was funny, but the IP Right Holders have 100% right to not put it up.

You're only proving that the purpose of copyright has changed, somewhere along the way, from providing incentive for the production of creative works to forever LOCKING UP said works as "property" and denying them to the world.

Once you publish something, the world eventually has a right to it. Just as you take from the world the experiences it provides you and instill them into a creative work, you must in turn provide the work itself as public domain. Copyright was supposed to be a short-term exception to this rule, but the "artist entitlement" mentality has changed it, and the world will not be better off for it.

Re: Re:

No, the world does not have a 100% right to everything. Everything is not free, there is not anarchy.

But you're taking my words out of context and saying I support giant companies locking up un-publihed materials for decades to later monetize on them. No, I don't support that. For as long as an artist lives, he deserves to be able to capitilize on his creation.

That's what people don't understand. The purpose of copyright HAS changed, because the nature of people has changed over the years. Music and Art has turned into a capitalist affair, and will be until we are completely socialist.

Key word in your post: EVENTUAL. The world has an EVENTUAL right to my work. I could care less if my work is free after I die. I'm fine with that. But I would appreciate it if people didn't think that they had a right to listen to my music that I poured hours upon hours of work into for absolutely no cost.

Re: Re:

No, the world does not have a 100% right to everything. Everything is not free, there is not anarchy.

But you're taking my words out of context and saying I support giant companies locking up un-publihed materials for decades to later monetize on them. No, I don't support that. For as long as an artist lives, he deserves to be able to capitilize on his creation.

That's what people don't understand. The purpose of copyright HAS changed, because the nature of people has changed over the years. Music and Art has turned into a capitalist affair, and will be until we are completely socialist.

Key word in your post: EVENTUAL. The world has an EVENTUAL right to my work. I could care less if my work is free after I die. I'm fine with that. But I would appreciate it if people didn't think that they had a right to listen to my music that I poured hours upon hours of work into for absolutely no cost.

A true artist earns that title, often working for free or lower pay. Working your way up through the system should have it's benefits and copyright law should protect your wor from theft or from someone else profiting off your work. It's not archaic to believe that. Also its different when you do work for hire like say a plumber or even an architect. I pay you to do something. When I do a project that is work for hire as an artist there is no expectation of additional pay down the line. There should be protection however from that person repurposing your art modifying it and then selling it if that was not the original intent and what they paid for up front.

Re:

Agreed, But the fact nobody can deny is, copyright law is now twisted solely for benefit of the copyright cartels. Neither the public, nor the creators are considered. The laws now are beyond the scope of its own authority, which is a granted one, by the people.

Jumping on the bandwagon

I 100% agree with this post. I have built a solid fan base through releasing things for free and I pay my bills by doing all sorts of things from gardening to telemarketing.

Some people have attacked me viciously in the past when I've posted on here because they've misinterpreted me. I just want to remind everyone: artists are not the enemy in "The Pirate Wars" - I love filesharing, it's how I get a lot of my music out there, and I firmly believe that I shouldn't be paid for doing something that I get so much enjoyment out of.

That's just me saying that to clear up any misconceptions about my stance on file-sharing for anyone who has read my earlier posts.

I think the copyleft movement, namely Creative Commons, is a crucial part of artists getting content out there for free. Check out www.creativecommons.org if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I still stand by this belief though: copyright is important. What CC does is expand on traditional copyright to loosen this "hold" on 18th Century ideas.

Changing the actual structure of the law would be a logistical nightmare.

It would be like declaring that all the old currencies are defunct and only new physical bills and coins will be accepted. That would be crippling.

So, as a community, we're working on it. And the Creative Commons principle is simple: the copyright stays, but the artist grants an additional license which means it can be downloaded for free and shared: Brilliant!

But like I said, artists are not the enemy. Remember that most of us are just like me, telemarketing and such by day and plugging our guitars into our computers by night. The Metallicas and Rihannas of the world probably make up about 0.5% of the artist community.

IP debate is backwards

Originally, copyrights and patents were supposed to protect the little guys; aspiring artists and small-time inventors, who could have their works ripped off by big players with a lot of money in their pocket, and who were more capable of controlling the market.

Both sides in the IP debate today miss this fact. Defenders of current copyright laws often end up supporting big players against what should be rationally considered fair use. Critics of IP laws often go to the opposite extreme -- thinking in their mind that they exist to protect the big players -- and end up proposing solutions that would make it easier for the little guys to get ripped off.

What we need to be talking about is not getting rid of IP, but expanding and protecting fair use rights. There's a difference between kids distributing something on disks at school, and a large corporation taking someone's work and making a profit off of it, screwing the content creator.

If it's a choice between artists' sense of entitlement and sense of entitlement from Seth Godin and a pack of pasty geeks, I'll have to go with the artists. Because Seth Godin is one self-aggrandizing BS merchant.

You are the biggest idiot. Artists study and work at their craft as hard or even harder than anybody else. We deserve to be compensated for our talent and our work. Art is a luxury. If people can't afford it, they should do without!